Recording Industry: Beginning of the End?

[Jims5543]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Good. F*ck the RIAA. They've been f*cking the artists for years. 'bout time some payback was enacted.

I stopped buying CD's when the RIAA started suing teens because they used Napster or downloaded music illegally. How many years ago was that? That was the last time I bought a CD in a store. I have purchased directly from rather unknown artists but never online or in a store.

Nothing like a pothead like Busta Rhymes lecturing me in a RIAA TV commercial about how illegal my music downloading is...... ummmm your a drug addict and you do illegal drugs and your telling me whats legal? Please.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Highlander179

Prince has been doing this for years.... this is pretty much old news.

BTW, iPods have killed the radio. Get with the times.

This movement away from big labels has been happening for years and Prince is one of many excellent examples.

My only point is this shift away from big labels and towards direct distribution may have reached a watershed moment today because of Radiohead and NIN - the Radiohead news has been particularly heavy all over the tubeworks and especially timely since the RIAA just won a big court case (round 1 at least) against an alleged pirate.

If the Radiohead experiment -DRM free, pay what you want- is successful, it may have broader implications.

FWIW.

Best,

Kurt

[Highlander179]

Originally Posted by Jim Cesiro

I tried the i-pod thing and came to two conclusions.

1. i-pods suck I have 2 of them and they just suck. I tried twice and both of them gave me battery and software problems with the 1st month.

2. I do not have the time nor the patience to sit and catalog all my music on a hard drive and continue to shop for more songs online and update my i-pod.

and here I thought they were idiot-proof...

Originally Posted by Jim Cesiro

I can turn on my Sirius receiver or log into my online account at work and never get tired of the variety of music. I even listen to music I have never owned in my life and enjoy it.

I've had XM too and hated it. When driving, I would lose the signal behind trees, buildings and even driving next to large vehicles like semis. Pretty dissappointing performance IMO. Then add to that the crappy playlists that get repeated every 2.5 hours I didn't see the point. Its just as limited as FM radio, except your paying monthly for it. I prefer to listen to what I want, when I want.

[Jims5543]

Originally Posted by Highlander179

and here I thought they were idiot-proof...




I've had XM too and hated it. When driving, I would lose the signal behind trees, buildings and even driving next to large vehicles like semis. Pretty dissappointing performance IMO. Then add to that the crappy playlists that get repeated every 2.5 hours I didn't see the point. Its just as limited as FM radio, except your paying monthly for it. I prefer to listen to what I want, when I want.

Well, the only idiot would be whoever designed the units to lock up, not turn off, skip for no reason, and poor battery life after 1 month. Even after following very carefully the instructions for recharging and initial charge.

Different strokes for different folks, I would not take XM even if it was for free, I have had it in rental cars and it blows.

Sirius has so many stations, their program directors, get it. I never know what I want to listen to and it offers me lots of options, from country, to rock to classical, to talk. Maxim radio is a favorite right now as well as Faction and New Country. I am all over the place and could not afford to but the CD or music online to keep up with me.


**edit** I also had the problems you describe with one of my 2 Sirius units. I replaced the antenna and it is perfect now.

[Scott R]

Originally Posted by Jim Cesiro

Well, the only idiot would be whoever designed the units to lock up, not turn off, skip for no reason, and poor battery life after 1 month. Even after following very carefully the instructions for recharging and initial charge.

Different strokes for different folks, I would not take XM even if it was for free, I have had it in rental cars and it blows.

Sirius has so many stations, their program directors, get it. I never know what I want to listen to and it offers me lots of options, from country, to rock to classical, to talk. Maxim radio is a favorite right now as well as Faction and New Country. I am all over the place and could not afford to but the CD or music online to keep up with me.


**edit** I also had the problems you describe with one of my 2 Sirius units. I replaced the antenna and it is perfect now.

My comments echo yours, Sirius is an amazing entertainment medium. Couple that with the last two generations of radios and you have MP3's and Satellite on the same device. I have a Stiletto, which gets SAT in my car, SAT outside walking around, it records songs and shows, I can load MP3's to it and play those when I want. Just amazing versatility, especially with how much I travel.

[lfot]

The music business has become the dinosaur who eats her own young in an attempt to avoid extinction. It helps the beast stay alive for the short term, but we all see what's going to happen.

What Radiohead is doing is nothing new, it's just being done at a much higher profile.

What I don't understand is the $87 charge to get the album in the discbox format.


And just for the sake of defense of the iPod... I've owned 3 since the first inception, and I've never had a major problem with any of them. A couple crashes here and there, but that's pretty minor. I don't go anywhere without my iPod. I even have the Alpine head unit with iPod hookup in the glove box of my P-car. LOVE IT!

Radio is dead. Long live freedom of choice!

[scottmandue]

Maybe I'm getting old but I still can't see paying for radio... maybe I'm spoiled living in Los Angeles with at least four RnR stations + one Jazz and one classical that I have programed on my car radio (probably more that i don't even know of)... and then there is a CD player in the car too.

As far as albums go I have discovered a bunch of great songs on albums that don't get air time and I would have never heard otherwise.

I went on a road trip with a lady and let her plug her ipod into the stereo, she had a bunch of great music but I don't think I heard an entire song all the way through... "check this out... no wait... listen to this"
Then there was the guy in the Apple store who was bragging about the bazillion songs he had copied from friends and strangers... I felt like asking him "do you listen to any of these songs or just collect them?" (both of these people are in their forties)

Death of an industry or birth of A generation with ADD?

I do agree that technology will bring more freedom to music and that is a good thing.

[stealthn]

Agreed on all points, I "hope" paying what you want does not backfire on them though. It won't be long before artists use all the mediums properly and benefit themselves and the fans; launch new CD online, on Satellite, Itunes, stores, in conjunction with concerts, pay per view, live, etc, All at the same time.

Now if we could just do something about ticket-shiester....

[Scott R]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

Maybe I'm getting old but I still can't see paying for radio... maybe I'm spoiled living in Los Angeles with at least four RnR stations + one Jazz and one classical that I have programed on my car radio (probably more that i don't even know of)... and then there is a CD player in the car too.

As far as albums go I have discovered a bunch of great songs on albums that don't get air time and I would have never heard otherwise.

I went on a road trip with a lady and let her plug her ipod into the stereo, she had a bunch of great music but I don't think I heard an entire song all the way through... "check this out... no wait... listen to this"
Then there was the guy in the Apple store who was bragging about the bazillion songs he had copied from friends and strangers... I felt like asking him "do you listen to any of these songs or just collect them?" (both of these people are in their forties)

Death of an industry or birth of A generation with ADD?

I do agree that technology will bring more freedom to music and that is a good thing.

I pay to exclude the commercials from my day, I don't like driving 20 min's to work and getting stuck in a 20 min commercial block, just a waste of my day. Plus I listen on-line all day at work where I REALLY don't want to hear commercials, and the stations don't change when I travel, lots of pluses.

I actually get turned off by terrestrial radio when I'm in somebody else's car and hear commercials, it's almost foreign to me now, doesn't even seem normal.

[Sonic dB]

I think that music as an art will benefit tremendously.

* Im not sure about that at all....

Musical artists spend countless hours of time developing their craft, writing and arranging the music, performing it in the studio, recording, mixing etc.

Countless hours. Musical artists need to be compensated for this.

Yes, you can "sell directly" over the web, and if you are GOOD, (and have adequate promotion behind it) you will get some sales that way...
But there needs to be a means of distribution for music that compensates the artist more than the 5 cents per download that Apple ITunes pays....
And... on top of that, piracy and illegal downloading is out of control...

People typically are cheap and want their art for Free.... Music and Movies to a lot of people are 'disposable' goods that they want to pay minimal amounts for...So, let's see how this Radiohead thing plays out...

But remember: Radiohead already has a following and a devoted fan base...

The up and coming artist will need to find a way for their music to get out to the people.... and then make their MONEY through gigging live and merchandise, endorsements etc... The Tunes, will merely be the vehicle of which they will make very little money off of....less than ever really.
So in conclusion: to say that the musical arts will "benefit greatly" is a little premature....

In one sense, this does allow the musical artist to have more direction over their career and music, and it will totally throw the doors open (actually it has already) for Independent Promotional companies, Marketing / Management companies to take over and do the promotions that the record companies are used to doing...

However, most artist do need some direction in their music... This is one area that needs to be strong...or the music will suffer....
and if musical artists are not compensated for their work in $$.... especially when they are GOOD.... then there will be a continuous downslide in the quality of music that is released, as incentives will continue to be lower.

Some entity needs to protect the artist. The intelligent artists who are good, will get paid in the long run, somehow... but there needs to be some shakup from this fallout to see specifically if any significant money will come from the sales of songs.

[nostatic]

in the old days, artists had benefactors that paid them so they could sit and create art. The whole getting paid for it is a rather recent phenomenon...

[Rearden]

How does this album compare to the rest of Radiohead's discography? I have downloaded it, but haven't listened yet.

[lfot]

Originally Posted by Rearden

How does this album compare to the rest of Radiohead's discography? I have downloaded it, but haven't listened yet.

It sounds like a free album.

I'm a pretty big Radiohead fan. And yes, the later stuff mostly. This new album really doesn't jump out at me in any way. Doesn't seem very thought out, just sort of thrown together.

One man's opinion.

[GDSOB]

The Grateful Dead were pioneers of the free music decades ago. They encouraged their fans to tape concerts, even setting up a "taper" area at most shows. Didn't hurt their album sales at all, and helped them become one of the top drawing live acts of all time.

[Sonic dB]

Taping is different... giving a couple of copies to your friends...trading the Grateful Dead concert bootleg for the Zepplin one etc....

mass digital distribution via piracy websites is something completely different...
and yeah, it does rip the artist off whether people want to believe that or not.
Without the RIAA, who is going to govern that? the feds? not likely...
hey im just saying that someone is going to get shafted and its most likely the artist
who will need the money to survive and create more delights for your Ipod.

The Radiohead record sounds like a "free one"

ouch...

[kstar]

The new Radiohead, like other Radiohead records, takes a few listens. It's like the first time you ever tasted scotch. Of course, some never develop a taste for it.

I paid 5 Pounds for it, or about $10.

Re iTunes, the artists only get around a nickel or dime per song because the labels get the lion's share and I have gathered that Apple probably gets somewhere from 20 to 30 cents. Take the labels out and the artists could grab a much bigger share from platforms/aggregators like iTunes and Amazon.

Now that Apple has settled the Apple Corp. litigation, my understanding is that Apple Comp. can play the role of a quasi-label, only a non-evil one.

Best,

Kurt

[Rick Lee]

Am I the only one here who thinks stealing copyrighted material is wrong? Don't you expect to get paid royalties on what you create? Sure, most rock stars you heard of are already rich. But they only got that way because a record company invested in them, paid for them to record, press and distribute a few albums and then bankrolled their tours until they became profitable. If record companies go away, it won't hurt the already successful ones. It will make it that much harder for new bands to take off and get national exposure.

My iPod has been great for two years. I can't live without it. There are easy fixes when it locks up. I can't imagine paying a monthly subscription fee for radio, especially since I only listen to AM and only then when I'm in the car.

[kstar]

Just saw this articlle:

Radiohead album goes live on the internet

Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3047609.ece

Excerpt:
One thing for certain, however, is that In Rainbows – at least for now – will end Radiohead's run of number one albums. According to Meryl Blackburn of the UK Official Chart Company: "They are not a chart-registered retailer so they will not be eligible for inclusion in the chart."

The move has already had its imitators. Yesterday, it was reported that the Grammy-award winning US band Nine Inch Nails were also considering releasing their next album over the net, after cutting ties with their record label. Oasis, the Charlatans and Ash have already indicated that their next work will be heard first on the internet.

FYI.

Best,

Kurt

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Am I the only one here who thinks stealing copyrighted material is wrong? Don't you expect to get paid royalties on what you create?...

Just to play "devil's advocate", yes & no, at least when it comes to music in some degree imo. If ASCAP, BMI, etc. had their way, they would copyright "notes" if they could get away with it. Why should Robert Plant and the boys (not picking on Zep, many do it) make millions from songs they (to put it politetly) "borrowed" from the guys who never made a cent? I know of LOTS of professional, working musicians, and very few earn what they refer to as "mailbox money" (i.e. royalties), and most disdain these orginazations and view them as I do, legalized extortion. When my friends kids (serious musicians, I might add), can't play (their original music) in a local college pizza hang-out due to BMI extortion of the establishment, then something's wrong imo. I'm from the Grateful Dead "trade music freely" camp, and that business model absolutely works for the artists...they don't become millionaires like the Dead, but they can earn a comfortable living doing what they LOVE without the bs of the "industry" controlling them. Like JG used to say (paraphrasing), once the notes & songs leave him, they are "out there" for all to share (without making a profit, and THAT is key). I'm not even sure that artists can claim that music is "original", unless they haven't been influenced by any song they've ever heard . I'm curious as to what Nostatic, and some other's "more connected" to the industry think?

ps: I have more live, taped shows from more bands than I can count, but these bands all follow the GD "business model". I do NOT advocate downloading copyrighted material, and I have never even copied a "purchased" cd (that was still in print) for anyone (when asked to do so).

[nota]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Am I the only one here who thinks stealing copyrighted material is wrong? Don't you expect to get paid royalties on what you create? Sure, most rock stars you heard of are already rich. But they only got that way because a record company invested in them, paid for them to record, press and distribute a few albums and then bankrolled their tours until they became profitable. If record companies go away, it won't hurt the already successful ones. It will make it that much harder for new bands to take off and get national exposure.

My iPod has been great for two years. I can't live without it. There are easy fixes when it locks up. I can't imagine paying a monthly subscription fee for radio, especially since I only listen to AM and only then when I'm in the car.

sure is a whole lot of stealing
major stealing is by the record CORP
if the artist gets a nickel or dime out of the dollar
it sure looks to me like the other $.90 got stolen from him
but thats legal, and the way the biz ''works''

then you get the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, ect extorting ''fees'' from clubs
and worse from kids,
but ever wonder how much of that goes to the artists???

the whole industry is rotten
and direct sales, at the site for CDs or online D/L is the only way for start up bands to make $$$


my other bwitch is nonmusic like older out of print books and old mags
there needs to be a eazy way to D/L the out of print out of stock material
and pay the writter NOT the printer/publisher a fair fee for private use
people should have the rights to copy too just pay a fair fee = to the amounts the writter gets per book not the so called owner of the rights
full retail price to the printer/publisher